consuls established in 1856. They reduced in a wild, hap-hazard way the sums appropriated for public buildings in process of erection, and for the support of courts regulated by law, and next winter they will be compelled to make them good by deficiency bills. It is the old demagogical trick of a party in opposition wishing to gain power.

The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;

The devil was well, the devil a monk was he

It is easy to cut down appropriations, but this is not always retrenchment. A man might retrench both bread and meat, but he would starve. True retrenchment consists in producing the best results with the smallest sum necessary. I do not say the Republican party has always done this, for I know it has not; but it has come nearer to it than the wild slashing and cutting down of appropriations by the Democratic House.

Ever since the war, by which our appropriations have been increased manifold, the reduction of expenditures has steadily gone on, except for two years, when very large appropriations were made for public buildings and works of internal improvement. I have a table carefully prepared in the Treasury Department showing that the current expenditures for 1875 were $84,773,762, in currency, and in 1860 $63,025,788, in gold, for similar purposes. Considering the increase of population and the depreciation of the currency, our regular expenditures not growing out of the war are less per capita than before the rebellion. But the great body of our expenditures in 1875, as for every year since the war, was for items directly caused by the war, amounting to $189,849,630, such as interest on the public debt, pensions, claims, and the like, a detailed statement of which I have in this document, and all of which are the direct result of the war, and are properly chargeable to the Democratic party as the cause and author of the war. And in the future the Republican party is much more likely to reduce these items than the Democratic party.

And as to the cry for reform, the promise of which is the burden of the Democratic platform, it is the old cry of "stop thief." The Democratic party has neither proposed nor accomplished any reform for thirty years. The reform which is demanded by the general voice of the people-the reformation of our civil service-depends almost entirely upon the President and heads of departments. The Constitution invests them alone with the appointing power. The law now on the statute book passed by a Republican administration confers all possible power upon these officers to accomplish this reform. You have the plain promise of Governor Hayes in his letter of acceptance that he will bring it about, and his promise is one that has never been broken. All hope of civil-service reform must depend upon the character, tendencies, and good faith of the President. Contrast Governor Hayes and Mr. Tilden, and then answer to your consciences which of them is more likely to secure reform. Mr. Tilden is a New York lawyer, trained in the school of Van Buren, who was the author of the policy that "to the victors belong the spoils." His political life has been spent in the city of New York, and his business life has been devoted

to the wrecking of corporations. Would any sensible man look to him, followed, as he will be, by a horde of hungry office-seekers, to effect a reform of the civil service? Governor Hayes was reared in the more modest and I think purer school of Ohio politics, and his professional life has been spent in punishing crime and securing justice to the poor and defenseless. His administration as Governor of Ohio has been distinguished by wise management of our benevolent and reformatory institutions, in which he knew no politics, and won the respect and esteem of his political adversaries. You know him well, and appreciate his purity and firmness of character. He is now solemnly pledged to reform the civil service, and by an act of self-abnegation he gives you the highest assurance that he will execute that pledge, for he assures you in advance that he will in no event be a candidate for a second term. What motive can he have to give you other than an honest and pure administration?

And there is one other test which, when applied to these candidates, should influence the mind of every patriotic citizen. Mr. Tilden is the reputed author of the "submission" plank in the Democratic platform of 1864. If he distinguished himself by any act of patriotism in the time that tried men's souls, I never heard of it. Governor Hayes was distinguished for gallant services in the army, and bears honorable wounds. Every page of his life is marked by ardent patriotism. No consideration for his own interest or safety could induce him to leave his duty in the field until the surrender of every rebel army. Surely, when choosing a Chief Magistrate, this is the highest test of merit.

Let us, my Republican friends, enter this contest with firm confidence that the people will do what is best. Let us again gather around the Republican party, proud of all the good it has done, anxious to repair its errors, determined to advance its standard, to keep fully abreast of the noblest and highest aspirations and purposes of our age, and to crown the full measure of our political life by protecting all men in equal rights, by redeeming all pledges of the public faith, and by securing all reforms attainable by poor human nature. Our candidates are honest, honorable men, unblemished in name or reputation: of that class and type of men called "self-made," because their high position is the natural result of their own life's labor and character, without the aid of wealth or superior advantages. With such a party and such candidates we may boldly enter the lists with absolute assurance that our success will advance the interests and honor of our country.

CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

AT MANSFIELD, OHIO, AUGUST 17, 1877.

FELLOW CITIZENS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The kindly words of welcome uttered by my friend and associate of many years move me beyond expression. They recall to me the memory of the early time when I came to Mansfield, then a scattered hamlet of about 1,100 inhabitants, without pavements or any of the modern conveniences of cities and towns. As Mr. Hedges has told you, very many of those I then met here are dead and gone. I was a boy then. A generation has passed away, and the sons of those I met then as citizens of Richland County now fill places of trust and responsibility. I have every reason in the world for being strongly attached to this town of Mansfield. You have always been kind to me. Here I studied law, here I practiced my profession for several years, here I married my wife, a native of your town, here I have lived ever since, and when the time comes, when this mortal coil shall be shuffled off, here, probably, will my body rest with your fathers. But pardon me, fellow citizens, if, under the kind words of welcome of your spokesman, my old and honored friend, Mr. Hedges, I have forgotten that we are here not merely to exchange courtesies, but to discuss grave matters of far more importance than the life or memories of an individual.

I am here to-night to state to you my views of what has thus far been done by the present Administration in its conduct of public affairs. I wish it distinctly understood that in doing so I speak for myself alone, as a citizen of Ohio, to you my fellow citizens and neighbors, to whom I am under the highest obligations of gratitude and duty. The President authorized me to say one thing, and one thing only, for him, and in his name, and that is that all reports that impute to him any participation whatever in the nomination of candidates on your State ticket, or any desire or purpose to influence in any way the senatorial contest in Ohio, are utterly groundless. These are your matters, and I can assure you for him that he has not interposed and will not interpose in any such contest between political friends. For anything else I say to you, neither he nor my old and honored friend, Judge West, is responsible.

You all know that I am now, and have been, warmly attached to the Republican party. I believe in its principles and honor its work. With my strong convictions I could not conceal my partisan bias, or my earnest hope for the success of the Republican party; but the subjects of which I intend to speak to you to-night will not lead me to say much of former political struggles, or to fight our old battles over again, but chiefly to discuss the actual administrative questions of the day as they have arisen since the fourth of March last, in all of which you are alike interested whether you may call yourselves Republicans or Democrats. On these questions I wish to appeal fairly to the candor and good judgment of honest men of both parties, asking for the

administration of President Hayes only that considerate charity of judgment which must be extended to all human agents.

When he was inaugurated he found thirty-six States in the full and uncontested exercise of all the powers of States in the Union. In two States only were there contests as to who was Governor. Both contests had existed from January to March, 1877, while General Grant was President. In South Carolina, Governor Chamberlain claimed to have been elected on the Republican ticket, and General Hampton on the Democratic ticket. The President is not made the judge of who is elected Governor of a State, and an attempt to exercise such a power would be a plain act of usurpation. The constitution of South Carolina is much like that of Ohio. The count of the vote was to be made by the General Assembly of the State. Unfortunately for Chamberlain a controlling question in the contest had been decided against him by a Republican court, and he was kept in possession of the State House only by the actual presence of United States troops in the building. He had appealed again and again to President Grant to recognize him as Governor and to give him the aid of Federal troops to enforce his claim, which General Grant had refused, seeking only to preserve the public peace. When President Hayes was inaugurated both contestants were called to Washington; both were patiently heard, and the questions presented were patiently and carefully examined. The President held that a case was not presented in which, under the Constitution and the laws, he was justified in using the army of the United States in deciding a purely local election contest.

The soldiers and bayonets of the United States were then withdrawn from the State House-not from the State, nor the capital of the State, but from the building in which the Legislature, which alone could lawfully decide this contest, must meet. This was all that was done by the President, and Governor Chamberlain, without further contesting his claim, abandoned it and left the State. I say to you now that, strongly as I desired the success of Governor Chamberlain and the Republican party in South Carolina, I believe that the President had not the shadow of a right to interpose the power of the army in this contest, and his attempt to do so would have been rash and abortive as well as without legal right.

The case of Louisiana was far more difficult. The local returning officers of that State had, after a full examination, certified to the election of the Legislature, with a Republican majority in both Houses. This had been done by excluding from their return the votes of certain parishes and counties wherein intimidation, violence, and fraud had prevailed to an extent sufficient to change the result of the election. I was present, at the request of General Grant, to witness the count, and I assure you, as I have said officially, that the proof of this intimidation, violence, and fraud, extending to murder, cruelty, and outrage in every form, was absolutely conclusive, showing a degree of violence in some of those parishes that was more revolting and barbarous than anything I could conceive of. It was plain that the returning officers had the legal right to pass upon and certify in the first instance who were elected members of the Legislature, and that they were justified by the evi

dence in excluding bulldozed parishes; but it was equally clear that their return was not conclusive upon the members elected, and that each House had the constitutional right to pass upon the returns, and the election of its members, and to set aside the action of the Returning Board. The two Houses, when organized, had also the power to pass upon the returns of the election of Governor, and they alone and no one else possessed that power. Neither the President of the United States nor the Returning Board has any power or right to pass upon the election of Governor. And here the difficulty in the Louisiana case

commences.

Governor Packard contends that a majority of the two Houses, as duly returned, did pass upon the election of Governor, and did return that he was duly elected, but this was stoutly denied by Governor Nichols. This vital point was strongly asserted and denied by the adverse parties, and the Legislature of Louisiana divided into two hostile bodies, holding separate sessions, each asserting its legal power, and denouncing the other as rebels and traitors. Governor Packard and his Legislature called upon President Grant for the aid of the army to put down insurrection and domestic violence; and here I confess that if I had been President instead of General Grant, I would have recognized Packard and sustained him with the full power of the General Government. My intense feeling caused by the atrocities in Louisiana may have unduly influenced me. But General Grant did not think this was his duty. I do not criticise his action, but only state the facts. He would only maintain the peace. He would not recognize Packard as Governor, but I know what is now an open secret, that it was the strong bent of his mind, and at one time it was his decision, to withdraw the troops, recognize Nichols, and thus end this dangerous contest. He did not do this, but simply kept the peace.

But during these two months the whole condition of affairs had slowly changed in Louisiana. The government of Packard had dwindled away until it had scarcely a shadow of strength or authority, except at the State House, where it was upheld by Federal bayonets. The government of Nichols had extended its authority over the State, and was in full existence as the de facto government of Louisiana, supported by the great body of the white men and nearly all the wealth and intelligence of the State, and by the tired acquiescence of a large portion of the colored people, some of whom deserted his Legislature and entered that of Governor Nichols. The delay and hesitation of General Grant had been fatal to Packard, and when Hayes became President the practical question was greatly changed. One thing was clear, that a Legislature had been duly elected in the November previous, and was then in existence, though separated into two parts. If the members lawfully elected could be convened, they could decide the question of who was Governor alone without the intervention of troops, and their decision could be supported, if necessary, by the General Government.

The most careful consideration was given to this question. Days and weeks of anxious deliberation were given to it by the President and his Cabinet. But one way seemed open for a peaceful solution,